A self-fulfilling prophecy of death...
Blogged by James Preece on 9th July 2012
From the Catholic Herald..
Professor Patrick Pullicino, a consultant neurologist for East Kent Hospitals and Professor of Clinical neurosciences at Kent University, stated in an address to the Royal Society of Medicine: “The lack of evidence for initiating the Liverpool Care Pathway makes it an assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway. Very likely many elderly patients who could live substantially longer are being killed by the LCP. Patients are frequently put on the pathway without a proper analysis of their condition. Predicting death in a time frame of three to four days, or even at any other specific time, is not possible scientifically.”
For those not familiar with the LCP it is a response to a patient perceived to be dying developed in a Liverpool hospice that involves heavy sedation, coupled with withdrawal of food and fluids. Professor Pullicino went on to comment that “This determination in the LCP leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy [...] If we accept the LCP we accept that euthanasia is part of the standard way of dying as it is now associated with 29% of NHS deaths.
...
Dr Philip Howard, an NHS doctor from Surrey, is pessimistic about the benefits of the LCP; he feels it means large-scale euthanasia by stealth and that the practice would gradually make it irrelevant whether euthanasia should be legalised. He commented: “It is a decision with an end in view. The patient is dying. Why? Because we say they are dying. Why? Because we have decided.”
[link]
Remember, the problem with the Pharisees wasn't that they had too many rules. God provided the rules. No, the problem with the Pharisees was that they played the rules like a kind of game and found 'clever' get outs allowing them to conveniently excuse all sorts of things.
Today's Pharisees are not the people who say "hold on, isn't starving people to death wrong?" Today's Pharisees are the people queuing up to provide technical get-out clauses for evil while counting themselves righteous on account of their high standing at the temple.
Reader Comments
+3
Chrysostom said...
There is nothing new about this: it was happening when I was a boy - in places like Belsen. This story - that people are being deliberately killed in hospitals - merits the front page of this morning's TELEGRAPH but is not, of course, given as much attention as tennis.
Now, here is a hypothetical question for those people who read this website. Supposing that the law was that only black people could be put on the Liverpool pathway for an early death. Rightly, that would be seen as "racist" as it obviously would be. However, would it be seen as unfair to black people or to white people?
+
+1
New Friend said...
When I read this story a few hours ago (as I am 7 hours ahead of the UK I tend to get to read the news whilst most of you are still asleep) I just knew James would feel compelled to publicise it.
This was a letter written by SIX doctors "in conjunction with the Medical Ethics Alliance, a Christian medical organisation". That suggests to me that they possibly have an agenda which includes matters other than just the care of the elderly!
As I have said before on this subject any evidence of abuse should be exposed and dealt with. The LCP is about care and not saving money.
As James fails to quote the official response to the letter I will:-
A Department of Health spokesperson said:
"People coming to the end of their lives should have a right to high quality, compassionate and dignified care.
"The Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) is not about saving money. It is an established and respected tool that is recommended by NICE and has overwhelming support from clinicians at home and abroad.
"The decision to use the pathway should involve patients and family members, and a patient's condition should be closely monitored. If, as sometimes happens, a patient improves, they are taken off the LCP and given whatever treatments best suit their new needs. To ensure the LCP is used properly, it is important that staff receive the appropriate training and support."
+
+1
New Friend said...
It seems as though there is another co-ordinated attack by the religious lobby underway. James was commenting upon an article in the Catholic Herald, whilst I was about an article in today's Telegraph written because of a letter to that paper. That the points made were almost identical cannot be a co-incidence can it?
+
+3
mike cliffson said...
Murder is murder, NF, you can't blame the messenger.
+
New Friend said...
Mike
Of course you can blame the messenger if the message they bring has been distorted to suit a particular point of view. LCP is about care. It isn't "murder". Not that even these "messengers" are calling it murder. If it was someone would have not only been prosecuted by now, they would have been found guilty.
+
+4
mike cliffson said...
And then you wake up.
+
New Friend said...
We are all awake Mike. Some of us have our eyes, ears and minds open too.
+
+3
mike cliffson said...
Sure, and wi' the gift t'gie us with it.
+
concerned said...
to new friend it could quite easily be murder now they are having an indipendent enquiry they slipped up slightly somewhat they put mp fiona bruces father on the pathway she insisted they take him off because it was done to her mother and was not very happy her father has lived a further six months, he was supposed to only have hours or days to live, whats going on in these slaughter houses sorry hostpitals it has got to be disbanded its being abused sorry to say.
+
+2
John said...
My mother died 3 years ago and was on the Liverpool Care Pathway. By the time that she died, it was no longer possible to site peripheral venous lines and subcutaneous fluids were not being absorbed. She had not eaten or drunk for weeks. She was distressed. She needed analgesia and she needed reassurance that she would be free from pain. The truth is that medicine has become terrified of criticism and being perceived to to standout from the crowd one way or the other. Patients are not receiving adequate pain relief because doctors fear being seen as acting inappropriately. sadly this leaves the door open to inappropriate use of Pathways such as the Liverpool pathway.
When discussing this I am concerned that relatives may be too frightened to ask for appropriate care for their dying relatives. At a painful time of life it is not wrong to wish to alleviate pain and it may provide the opportunity it address unfinished matters in a timely way.
Please remember those who will die today and those who are left to mourn.
+
mike cliffson said...
John:
Couldn't agree with you more, from personal and family experience. One does not have to believe all lawyers evil nor want doctors and nurses and NHS to be wholly unaccountable, to be aware that decisions ARE being made, or at leats being affected, to avoid litigation by unscrupulous highstreet lawyers battening on human misery - that has to be out of the way before other considerations.
+
+2
Catherine said...
Thanks for this James....I fear that despite the attempts by Dr.Saunders to defend LCP:
"But finally, we also do need to be alert to doctors and other health care professionals, either through negligence, ignorance or perhaps even malicious intention, misusing a perfectly good care tool to speed the deaths of patients who are not imminently dying. That is why good audit and good supervision are so important. Any misuse of the LCP must be exposed and dealt with."
http://pjsaunders.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/is-nhs-really-killing-130000-pa
the fact remains that he is trying to steer a course between acknowledging that LCP originated with people with benign intentions, but is being used maliciously. It seems like an attempt to borrow from the good reputation of the hospice movement - notionally spreading hospice philosophy/practice to the wider sphere. In practice an effort to condense hospice philosophy into a "10-point plan" becomes an NHS euthanasia protocol.
As CS Lewis wrote; "mix truth with a lie and the lie becomes stronger."
+
Mockery of the Sacraments said...
You guys stress too much about this LCP. LOL If God doesn't want them to die he wouldn't make them ill in the first place.
+
+2
Hum... said...
God didn't make them ill in the first place, in fact I believe He said something like "If you don't want to get ill or die then don't eat the fruit from that tree over there" - whoops
+
+1
Mockery of the Sacraments said...
Well, God shouldn't have left smooth-talking snakes hanging around the Garden of Eden, should he? We've all seen how some ladies can fall for a charmer (LOL snakes, charmer geddit!).
At least The Almighty had the sense to restrict them to just making hissing sounds these days (snakes, not women).
God could always send Jesus down to heal the sick. Jesus did promise he would return one day, after all.
+
concerned said...
what utter rubbish do you write,mockery of the sacrements said, you say if god does not want them to die he would not make them ill, how stupid can you be did god make them smoke or did he put there arms up there backs and make them spread aids, drugs, alcohol, you are put on earth to do has you please if your brain tells you to do the wrong thing is that gods fault no its not its you who has commited the sin not god, you are put on earth to do has you please how can you blame god if a person murders its more than lol your comment its the pea you have for a brain.if everone obeyed the ten commandments god or no god what a world we would have it would be heaven on earth, think my friend think if you can.
+
+1
Hum... said...
So what your saying is that yeah, we should not kill them off because Jesus is going to come again and heal them... He may come tomorrow so why take the risk of killing them now?! Super
+
+1
Mockery of the Sacraments said...
Oh I wouldn't worry about that. Jesus bought Lazarus back from the dead so I'm sure he'll be able to raise them up if they have already passed.
+
mike cliffson said...
Hey, comentors can be anywhere, but this here's a UK blog. Uk Started!Noone so much as proud? nonone save Catherine above so much as know?
What if, like John above, you are in the Uk and have a very ill person in the family, what decisions can you make?
And SEDATION and PAINKILLING are not SYNONYMS.
UK was where pioneers in dignity in dying with as little pain as possible, and hospices, got off the ground and have over half a century's medical experience: Group Captain Cheshire and Sue Ryder.
In every public debate in my lifetime they have been deliberately overlooked at best nulllified in the lamestream media, lambasted along with other catholics in the lamestreammedia, beeb etc., the vile ad hominem lie that Catholics were sadists who delighted in humnans dying in agony.
Noone had to go far to a hospice and talk to their medics, if they felt that what they said needed checking out , too much to expect of beurocrats, MPs, and journalists, let alone secularists too blinded by hate of catholicscm to even consider the common good.
Before Sue Ryder's death she had a row with her own hospice movement, I know not to what extent sedation had to do with it.
Painkilling is what it says.
They have it down to a fine art, not only hospices, but many groups of district nurses, the cancer ones whose name I for get etc., maintaining consciousness, with minimal and bearable discomfort, very nearly to the last minute. It's timeconsuming, variable to the patient, can need constant adjustment.(As John points out regarding Liverpool, fine judgement can be jam for parasitic High Street lawyers.Another thing to worry Doctors anyway, even without lawyers, is the unhealthful aspect of painkillers.long story.)
Sedatives come from the aneathetists' armoury. A little dozes you and make you remote and unbothered about things - any one who has had a number of medical procedures has had this.
A very little more makes you unconscious.
(There are rumours of a turf war between specialists stateside when mainstreammedicine was getting into pain management, dying with dignity,and so forth and aneasthetists horned themselves in - of details of this putative turf war, and in the UK similar behind the scenes, my knowledge is ZERO)
Sedatives MAY be used licitly and ethically , again hands-on finetuning,in combination with pain killers,perhaps on and off,to help a patient get rest and sleep, etc., especially towards the hours of dying.
At the dosage to make the patient as nearly unconscious as possible , or at a dosage you can be damn sure they're unconscious, there are two BAD possibilities :
ONE is that unconscious, SEDATION masks the agonies produced by depriving a human of water especially, let alone nourishment. It will soon be possible to prove that the victim's subconscience knows this.Never provable, but undoubtable, is that their soul does.
Even before the liverpool pathway, and cartainly otherwhere than the UK,deliberate murder has been committed in this way.
The acute organfailure , particularly of kidneys and liver, immediately preceding death is the only medical case (many provisos and lawyerfodder fine judgement)where withdrawal of liquids has any justification: when the patient , if/when conscious, will/would actually refuse much more than to moisten mouth and lips, becuase their own body is telling them it can't process it(- not reliable in itself as a sole indication , you may refuse liquids by mouth for other reasons than near death)
The other EASILY BAD EFFECT of SEDATION is the "feelgood" factor for family and carers: your last view of Gran (or dad, or sis etc) she's sleeping peacefully after all that suffering. She's been through enough, poor soul.So YOU don't suffer seeing her, you selfish miserable
little worm, YOU don't have to suffer her tonguelashing giving you hometruths you need to know, YOU don't have go through hearing bewildered half-truths and complete misunderstandings from the last few days or even years back, which hurt to hear. YOU can't bear it.YOU don't start to take death seriously , because it's all so peaceful and beautiful. Because it's all about YOU really, isn't it? Not HER. Sedate her already. Oh, there's a medical reason for the drip to be removed or never changed. Fancy that. They know what they're doing.
Like hell they do!
The First approximation would be: sedation BAD, withdrwal of liquid EVIL, pain management good.
Some American hospices gave 1% as the doubtful cases.
Most of us will eventually be with or have resposability for a dying human. Who knows, most, or many of us, will evn die ourselves, eventually.
May God be with us then and always.
+
+1
catholic medic said...
Is it the Liverpool Care Pathway or the 'One Size Fits All Pathway'?
It is not common for death to look awful, or for patients to be in uncontrolled pain. Pain relief and relief of other symptoms been refined over the last 4 or more decades. The LCP goes a step further and treats without symptoms. The patient will die on the LCP, even if they weren't dying.
This is not a religious debate. A GP said many years ago about a friend's mother, "It is important that a person's mind should not be unnecessarily clouded with medication, as the last few days and weeks can be a very important time to take stock." The human spirit is amazing and people will hang on to life till a birth, wedding or anniversary has occurred. However, for people who don't believe in God it may seem to them the obvious thing to take even death into their own hands.
+
New Friend said...
catholic medic
I can agree with almost all of that, having witnessed my own father deciding when he would go and having seen many residents in the care home I owned hang on until after some special family event. That though is very different to not understanding the true motivation behind the LCP or wanting it to be withdrawn completely. The LCP is simply trying to introduce recognised best practice into final days care. That it needs to be applied with compassion and skill is clearly necessary and where it isn't we need to take the appropriate steps.
However, not to apply that we have learned through the hospice movement, would be an unkindness to the dying and their relatives. Improve the process by all means, but don't abandon it for those who want it and can benefit from it.
+
x- nurse said...
the only people who benefit from this lazarus pathway are the doctors scooping in money for want of greed so they kill to achieve the target they should be hung from the highest gallows.
+
mike cliffson said...
"recognized best paractice."
Who so recognized it?
"The true motivation behind LCP" - who is motivated?
"What we have learnt through the hospice movement."
Hmm. Now , I ask you did "we "learn it nigh 50 yrs ago while hospices were Catholic Group Captain Cheshire and Catholic Sue Ryder, or after their deaths and the introduction of heavy sedation and fluid withdrawal and commercial stateside hospices, when, my opinion, it came handy to cherrypick hospice practices and have an out-sourced scapegoat?
You say your agreement is with "almost all "catholic medic" says" ,
Query: Including:
"The LCP goes a step further and treats without symptoms. The patient will die on the LCP, even if they weren't dying."
?
+
New Friend said...
Mike,
Who recognised it? Those who have the responsibility, which has been given to them by us, the whole of our society, and not just those with a particular viewpoint.
The motivation behind it is care from devoted medical professionals. We must be wary that those who manage the funding do not gain control. Strong supervision, regulation and inspection is essential.
Yes, if put on the LCP incorrectly people will die who should not. Which is why we must make sure this does not happen.
Ever heard of throwing out the baby with the bathwater? We need to listen to the concerns, deal with them and improve the system, but not abandon it.
+
johny said...
to new friend, you seem to spend more time condeming the roman catholic faith than the liverpool lazarus no care pathway, which is the main topic whats the motivation of two professors and six top doctors who condemn the l c p and is without a doubt back door murder, you mention strong supervision is needed and should not be put on it incorectly, was all that not worked out before using this barbarick implemented death pathway and not care for patients just drug them into an induced coma, whilst starving them, and dont tell me some are taken off it if they improve, a healthy person will die its a lethal cocktail morphine and starvation, on the death certificate it should state the cause of death was dehydration, which is murder by neglect.
+
New Friend said...
Johny,
The fact that a few doctors object is hardly surprising, especially if they share your religious point of view. I would suggest that many more approve of what seems to me to be a entirely sensible approach which is much misrepresented and possibly misunderstood by some posters on here.
I don't condemn the Catholic faith as I frequently see it's good side. I take issue with some of the attitudes adopted by some Catholics which I often cannot make any connection at all to Christianity.
+
+1
j said...
i would like to thank you new friend for saying you do not condemn the catholic religion and see its good side, the good side is that we believe in the creator god almighty, and are not athiest non believers, the fact that you say these few doctors that it is hardly surprising that they share my point of view, in my eyes religion has got nothing to do with it i am not a professor or a top doctor who condemn it, they work in this field of work, i am a retired bricklayer who lost my wife on this pathway and by the way she was church of england, a protestant, and saw her mother treated exactly as she was on this liverpool care pathway,20 yrs ago, no name for it then, nature taking its course they said, she insisted she did not wish to die in that way no water no food and morphine induced coma its barbarick, and i am not a catholic doctor. its a good job we have whistleblowers in the same occupation. okay new friend and thanks once again johny.
+
+2
mike cliffson said...
NF:I don't think there's much baby in the bathwater.
Starvation kills, dehydration kills faster, sedation keeps unconscious thru anything including the above.
A system based on this trio, when alternatives exist for 98% cases, has little to reform.
+
New Friend said...
Mike
And if patients, and/or their relatives, want to use the LCP do you propose to stop them? Do you think you have the authority to remove their rights? The most I think you should be given is the right for you to refuse it yourself, for either yourself or those for whom you have responsibility.
+
+1
mike cliffson said...
NF : Are you a syndicate?You've gone from existing to tighter medical control of, to individual rights to,LCP, in an instant.
This was the argument about slaves: don't have slaves yourself if you disbelieve in it, but don't impose your beliefs on others.
+
New Friend said...
mike
No I am a democrat. I believe in the will of the majority and the rights of minorities to disagree. You have the freedom to campaign but not to interfere.
Resisting slavery hardly compares does it? There is no compulsion to the LCP and if any was attempted I would be right there with you protesting.
+
+1
mike cliffson said...
Nf
"No compulsion" looks like Hobson's choice to me.
The point remains: the "drawbacks" to LCP.
+
+1
Simon Platt said...
Thanks for this post, James. Your concluding paragraphs are particularly apposite, and expressed as well as anything I have heard or read on the topic.
+
New Friend said...
Simon
They would only be apposite if they were true, but they are a distortion of the facts. They are no more than an opinion expressed from a particular viewpoint. Clearly you hold a similar view to James, as do many other posters on here, which is hardly surprising is it? Others, in the wider non Catholic world, hold different opinions.
+
Simon Platt said...
I expect that the Pharisees of Our Lord's time would have described His condemnation of their behaviour as a "distortion of the facts".
+
New Friend said...
Simon
Are you comparing the validity of James's opinion (and by association yours too) with that of "Our Lord's"?
I thought that it was only God whose opinion was never incorrect!
+
+3
Simon Platt said...
Although I have not made any such comparison, James' beliefs, and my own, are in conformance with the authoritative teaching of Christ's Church. Yours are not, of course. You are a dissembler and a mischief-maker. God help you.
+
New Friend said...
Simon
By making the comparison with the Pharisees you were infering that James's opinion cannot be challenged as a distortion of the facts, and that clearly cannot be so. You have just done it again, by laying claim to be in conformance with "the authorative teaching of Christ's Church". As others disagree, it is only your opinion that this is so. It is not a fact, and should not be presented as such.
+
+4
Simon Platt said...
I've tried to make sense of your argument here. I've tried quite hard. But I've failed.
What I would like from you is some evidence of (1) James' alleged distortion, and (2) James' and my own departure from conformance to Church teaching. (I trust that you will accept the premise that Christ's Church is identical to that visible society in communion with our Holy Father Pope Benedict.)
If you do choose to answer please think carefully before doing so and explain yourself more clearly so we can follow your meaning. If you choose not to answer, or are unable to do so, you might consider it a suitable moment to cease your campaign here and take your calumnies elsewhere.
+
New Friend said...
Simon
"Today's Pharisees are not the people who say "hold on, isn't starving people to death wrong?" Today's Pharisees are the people queuing up to provide technical get-out clauses for evil while counting themselves righteous on account of their high standing at the temple"
Now I think that most people will very easily see the distortion present in those words and I find it strange and sad that you don't. The relevant word is "evil". The acts and events being considered are only "evil" if you have a particular viewpoint about them. As I have said, it is all a matter of opinion, and not of fact, and to present it as such is a distortion.
I most certainly do not accept "that Christ's Church is identical to that visible society in communion with our Holy Father Pope Benedict." This is another widely believed and distributed distortion of the Catholic Church.
It is an insult to the many other Christian churches, all of whom would claim to also be "Christ's Church". Once again it is merely an opinion, to which you are obviously entitled, but in my view ought to be very much more restrained in the way it is presented. The self righteousness of the Catholics is what turns people away from them so often, and if you don't have the humility to recognise that I feel sorry for you.
By the way I am not on any campaign here. I seek knowledge of your arguments the better to be able to handle them in my situation. Countering humbug on the way is just another way of finding things out.
+
+3
Simon Platt said...
That's very poor, I'm afraid. You claim to be trying to understand the position of faithful Catholics, but you refuse even to try to consider our arguments from our viewpoint, or respond sincerely to our points, preferring condescension and insult. You should not be surprised that many readers here think you post bad faith.
+
New Friend said...
Simon
Of course I try to understand your arguments from your point of view. There would be little point of trying to look at them from another viewpoint would there, especially as sometimes they don't make a lot of sense looked at from anywhere else.
Sometimes I understand, and can even agree. Sometimes I understand, but don't agree. Sometimes I am critical in the hope that this will provoke an illuminating defensive response. Sometimes I ask searching questions to gain a deeper insight into your reasoning not, it must be stressed, in any expectation that we will find common ground, but rather that I will better know the ground upon which your attitudes are founded. If you regard that as bad faith then you are entitled to your opinion. I am just explaining my motives as honestly as I can.
+
+3
Simon Platt said...
No you don't - although I'm beginning to wonder whether you have convinced yourself that you do. In truth, however, you quite openly reject invitations to do so: exempli gratia "I most certainly do not accept [the premise I asked you to accept to see something from my point of view, and that of most of the commenters here]". I suppose now that you don't understand what I consider to be a straightforward convention of rational discourse. Again, you recently abused another commenter here for being in an "isolated little world", despite his having explained a little of his conversion story.
I think you're a classic troll. I marvel at James' patience with you and I wouldn't respond to you at all except that you address me directly; and you flatter yourself if you think you ask searching questions. I don't often read your comments but I don't think I've seen anything from you beyond shallow cliché and insult.
+
New Friend said...
Simon
I get quite angry when anyone suggests they know my motivation better than I do. I regard that as impertinent at best and another example of self righteousness at worst. That I try does not mean I succeed. Whether that is my fault, or because the reasoning is skewed, is another question, but to claim I don't try is an insult when I know very well that I do.
That I suggest that someone lives "in an isolated little world" was a comment upon his particular position and not upon Catholicism in general, and nor does it mean that I don't try to understand it. I think you are confused between seeking to understand something and either agreeing with it, or indeed having any sympathy for it. I could understand Hitler's reasoning, but I neither agreed with, or had any sympathy for, it.
We have been through the "am I a troll" argument before and have established that whilst some are shallow enough to come to that conclusion, I have established that I do not fit such a description. Read the definition for yourself to work out why.
+
+4
Simon Platt said...
He that has eyes to see, let him read.
I don't think I've commented at all about your motivation, only on your behaviour here (which is very poor). I haven't consciously tried to avoid such comments; it's just not something it would be natural for me to do.
Except, I suppose, that there is something implicit in the accusation of trolling. Having been a keen fisherman from an early age I know very well what trolling is, and how it works. I think I also know what it looks like.
+
New Friend said...
Simon
He that thas eyes that look only in one direction will see but one part of the picture.
Well at least we have something in common. I used to own a sea angling boat in which I frequently trolled, so I too understand the word............when used in that context.
My "behaviour" and my motivation are inextricably linked, so to criticise one is to criticise the other. As I have said you are clearly entitled to your opinion on my motivation, but please don't try to tell me what it is.
+
+1
Simon Platt said...
You really are a hypocrite. And, quite frankly, if you post the insulting and provocative nonsense you have been posting here you can expect to be responded to in far stronger terms than I think would be in my nature. (Well, perhaps not in my nature; I find myself self-editing as I go along.)
Still, at least you seem now to be accepting that your behaviour might reveal something of your motivation. Of course, as sincere Catholics, those you oppose here will try not to judge your heart. But we can hardly fail to judge your actions.
God grant you peace.
+
New Friend said...
Simon
How many times do I have to repeat it. I know what my motivations are! I would not insult you by suggesting that I knew your motivations better than you did and I ask that you pay me the same courtesy. How would you like to effectively be called a liar?
To call me a hypocrite is also an insult. You might not agree with my motivations, or the consequent postings, but they are not hypocritical in any way at all. Maybe you would do things differently, but thats up to you.
Only yesterday I was posting an explanation of a particular Catholic position on another web forum to a group of people who had it completely wrong, and had no chance that any Catholic would be reading and replying. These people live here, amongst Catholics and have to interact with them all the time. For them not to understand why some conclusions are reached produces, at best, misunderstandings and at worst some very dangerous situations.
So I wrote as accurately as I could, whilst explaining that I personally did not agree, and in so doing was trying to help. You can question my method but not my motivation.
I also had a birthday party here last Friday during which I had a long conversation with a respected local priest, Father Joe-Joe. We both consumed quite a lot of beer. He left the party for an hour to take a mass, but then returned. I am quite sure he would be amazed to read what has been written about me here for we genuinely exchange views and try to find common ground.
I would like an apology, but don't expect one.
+
Simon Platt said...
Do you really know what your motivations are? Do you really? I'm not always entirely sure of mine. I think most people are the same in that respect. Still, I can see what you do, even though I can't see into your heart.
And, yes, your behaviour here is hypocritical. You pretend to be open minded (I mean, open to learn about Catholic teaching and the viewpoints of faithful Catholics who post here, even if not seeking the Truth), but post things like:
[Long list of quotes from this thread deleted on grounds of decorum and for the avoidance of appearing petty. Readers can check for themselves if they really wish.]
You pretend to be reasonable, but object to the basic premise of most of the posters here, and of the Catholic teaching that you pretend to be trying to understand - that is, that there is such a thing as objective truth. You seem to be a (pure?) relativist, (is there such a thing?) expecting us to accept your (implicit) premise (cf. "I am a democrat") - which I can understand, at least partially and at least in the context of a process of deduction, although I consider it bonkers - without seeming to consider that it is "just an opinion". And you sneer so! (cf. "Ever heard of throwing out the baby with the bathwater?") It's not big & it's not clever. Your behaviour is what I would expect of a sixth-former who was trying to undermine the faith of his "friends".
Perhaps, though, you're not such a hypocrite after all. Perhaps one has to sin consciously to be a true hypocrite, and perhaps you don't realise what you are doing. I suppose that might be some kind of mitigation.
Oh, and please take this advice: give up trying to explain Catholicism to others. It's astonishing that you think yourself qualified to do so. And this business with Fr Joe-Joe - what you have described seems to accuse him of having broken the Eucharistic fast. I quite understand that you would think this of little or no consequence, but Fr Joe-Joe ought not and neither would most of the readers here. You really ought to be more careful with your gossip.
(Sorry, Mark.)
+
New Friend said...
Simon
Very few things make me angry but having my motivation repeatedly questioned is one of them. I KNOW my motivation with 100% certainty so can this be the end of any suggestions that I may not.
You again insult me by calling me hypocritical, and that I only "pretend" to be open minded and then offer a condecending "mitigation" that perhaps I might not know what I am doing. All wrong. All insults.
My open mindedness does not extend to having to learn Catholic teaching or the viewpoints of "faithfull Catholics". I have heaps enough experience of that already to have reached my conclusions about them, so if you condemn me for not taking these too seriously you are really misunderstanding my purpose. My desire is to explore how that teaching operates in the real world and what your answers are to specific situations. Of course I stray off thread sometimes, I am only human, but that is my central purpose.
I have no desire to undermine anyone's faith. If I have any wish for the other posters on here it is that they keep their faith as a personal matter and not let it interfere with anyone who does not share it. However if your faith brings you personal comfort and hope then I am happy for you. Why would I wish to undermine that?
I was not trying to explain Catholicism to anyone else. That is not my responsibility and was not my purpose. I was seeking to correct a number of fundamental and potentially quite dangerous statements in the best way I could. I know this country and what can happen here. I am assuming that you do not. It is not like the UK in almost any way. Insult the Church here and you can get shot. Maybe some of you think that is a good idea and I ought to be a suitable target. Do you mind if I disagree!
Father Joe-Joe is an unconventional but a hugely popular and very effective priest. He doesn't take either himself or some of the things he does too seriously. He gets things done and he does so with energy and humour. I find myself much more in sympathy with him than with many of the self indulgent things I read on here and other UK traditional Catholic places. If you think what he did was of any consequence then you are right, I don't, and I doubt if he or anyone else does here. They love the guy and he loves them.
+
+3
Mark Dobson said...
I’m loath to talk about NF any more, but since I see he’s still leading people down the same cul-de-sacs, I’ll quote myself:
“The best case scenario as I see it is that he is sincere but very confused about what constitutes dialogue – I'm sorry if that's the case, but there appears to be very little that I can do about it personally, so I'm out.
[...]
For what it's worth, I hope that others who recognise his unwillingness/inability to engage in a genuine exchange of opinion will follow suit.”
Orig. Comment
+
Simon Platt said...
Fair enough.
+
New Friend said...
Mark
I invite anyone who is truly interested in a genuine exchange of opinion, with emphasis on the exchange, to try me out. You might be very surprised.
Those who have fixed ideas, who only seek to push their own view of the world, are always going to believe the fault lies on the other side. I see very little evidence of many people who are prepared to actually consider what I say, but who seem only to have the desire to trot out the well rehearsed defences. When I do encounter a more open mind I am very happy to acknowledge it.
I contribute to several internet forums and blogs, which have a variety of themes at their centre. In none of them, not one, do I encounter the suggestions that I am a "troll" or that I am unwilling to engage. Now as I really think that says quite a lot more about you than it does about me, maybe you should reflect on it.
+
+1
mike cliffson said...
You said "Yes, if put on the LCP incorrectly people will die who should not. "
"People will die who should not".you said
You left it in the passive _ Is it just sort of happening, or is there no agent, however mistaken, erring, blind , misled misguided,or possibly evil? Noone, anywhere along the line?
"people die who should not " "should not" in this statement -of yours -normally infers the discernment that something is not good, bad, or evil.
Discernment is a word commonly used by catholics: do you have any objection to it applied to your arguments, or do you prefer to limit yourself to opinions, or change the accepted meanings of the word?
"People will die who should not "
+
New Friend said...
Mike
The context of my remark is that it is no different to the fact that people will die who should not, when any medical procedure is incorrectly applied. So it remains passive, and there is no specific target. It could have happened to me during the major surgery I underwent in 2010. This is why it is essential that the training is first class, the supervision better and the inspection regime rigorous. If we are failing in any of those things then they must be addressed and improved.
+
Simon Platt said...
Dear James,
"Comments make me happy"? I wonder whether that's still true.
(Still, I think we know where true happiness lies.)
+
watchman said...
to new friend, have you not cared to have read the national newspapers about this lazarus liverpool pathway to save money for the n h s, professors and top doctors who work in the saving of lives, not to euthanise by the back door, doctors are paid to save life not end life it stinks and will go down in history as one of the biggest mistakes the british governement have ever made.
+
x- nurse said...
they do actualy get paid to end lives on the lazarus from coqin they give them money to put them on it in other words bribary to murder.
+
eyeopener said...
your so right watchman there are more put down by the back door euthanasia in this country than in countries were it is legalised, it is quite alarming for this to be allowed, god forgive them. or will he.
+
New Friend said...
Watchman & eyeopener
Of course I have read the press and I can only repeat what i have said before. No system is ever perfect so we have to ensure correct training, supervision and inspection. Where failings are discovered corrections need to be made. When abuse occurs, prosecution must follow. I do not though believe that the LCP has any intent to provide anything other than a guide to best practice in end of life care. I most certainly do not see it as back door euthanasia and feel those who try to present it as such do some truly wonderful, dedicated and caring medical professionals a significant misservice. As a past owner of a care home I was priviledged to witness some of their work at first hand and know that nothing could be further from the truth. The LCP will only be introduced if it considered to be in the best interests of the patient and with the informed consent of their family.
The Catholic obsession with this is becoming as unreasonable as their stance on abortion and putting an ever increasing distance between themselves and mainstream opinion. You might not care about that but there is a danger that if the mountaintop you occupy to shout your messages becomes too remote no-one will hear you.
+
Margaret said...
Over a time of reading peoples experiences of their relatives having being placed on the LCP, I like so many more people are horrified to think this may be our awaited fate. I for one am going to try to see the same doesn't happen to me, God forbid. There are so many mistakes made in health care that I doubt the same wont apply to peoples treatment in this, so I doubt it can be regulated as suggested. It may just come to ones last words being, I am going out & may be some time.
+